2 contribute to your own contribution to your head big enough or your friend mastered the ability? Take the restaurant chef as an example: such as partnership to open a restaurant he is the head chef, you do not know if it is my words may consider partnership will also consider hiring their own chef to master all the shares, if the partnership, we must look at the chef's ability in the end how strong in the end how big the fame, whether there is a real skill, whether it can be a real effort, if someone else mastered the core strength, you can easily be in a passive, such as looking at you bad, etc. The chef will cook a bad meal, and then the chef will be in a bad situation, and the chef will be in a bad place. The chef will cook very bad food and finally lead to the closure of the restaurant The most loss is the contributor, the partnership business is not good, if you have a lot of money, don't care it doesn't matter you didn't say how much you invested? You contribute to the business, he contributes to the business, you run the company, others contribute to the business, others work for you, and you share the shares equally. I don't think it's appropriate, unless you are very broad-minded. Once the shares are divided, the power is divided, although the assets are all yours, but your words do not necessarily work, but the friend does have the ability, the budget does make money and can successfully recover the cost, it can also be considered, suggesting that the friend's shares are slightly lower. Your friend's psychology is? Indeed, the ability is very strong, and you are very good, want to drive and support each other to make money together? Or in order to avoid risk, win or lose, lose their own hair is not lost, win can also be equally divided into financial, if that, I feel that my friend is too powerful, if the investment is 500,000, suggest that each of the friends contributed 50,000, how much to show that after the formation of the company to rely on their own contribution of more than one's own advantage to make up for their own professional lack of shares can be equally divided in half, more than one of the capital for the big, if the closure of property is still in accordance with the 50: 5 Divided, if they can not often go, you can share the dividends, if the dividends are too small, the company closed down and other major events or their own masters, meaning that would have earned a lot of money, but the share to you is not cost-effective, are hidden from swallowing Then declared bankruptcy, to want to do a good job of partnering first plan to break up the partnership. There are more capable people and more people without money. Generally capable people are mostly working for others, know why? It is for their own no money, can not be the boss, empty all martial arts, no use, take other people's money as their own boss Is not a little inappropriate it? Money is the most important in this process can constrain everything, first put the scandal are said in the contract, in partnership. Otherwise, if there's a conflict in the middle, you'll easily become the wrongdoer. They consume the work, you consume is splashed out not necessarily back to the money, but if nine out of ten, they will sell, but not as good as the establishment of the company to let them do the vice president of the high wages, set up as a director, good performance commission generous, can not be all the risks are resisted to their own head, you can ask your friends, we are equal to the half of the money, you will be the establishment of a company to resist how much risk? Of course you can't ask that, but the reasoning goes like this. You can hire them, the money earned can be 3:3:3 points, if and they can't sit down, you can hire someone else,